Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU U 6297 Case file # 95-249356.

Material Examiner:

Malone (ROO

Remarks:

Case resulted in a guilty plea, no testimony transcript.

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Cary T. Oien

Area(s) of Expertise: Wood

Review commenced at: 9:07 am (Time), 5/22/03 (Date)

File #: 95-249356

Laboratory #(s): 20505036 S RQ

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Xa

a

□

□

□

a

□

. □

□

□

□

□

t

Trial testimony transcripts) (

Testimony Date(s):
Laboratory Reports):

Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:

Examiner Bench Notes of: •
Laboratory Number:

Materials Reviewed

N/A

Pages:

20505036 S RQ Date: June 9, 1982

Date:

Date:

RQ

20505036 S RQ

Page 1 of 3

r

Initials

cto

Was any other material reviewed? □ Yes

xa No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material:

Results of Review

File#: 95-249356 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: QlandKl

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

1 ) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes XO No □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes X □ No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any "No" or "Unable to Determine" Responses

XQ Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? □ Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? □ Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? □ Yes □ No □ Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials:

cto

r

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.
Use "Additional Comments" Sheet, if needed)

File #:

95-249356

1. The comparison and identification of bark is not a scientifically valid analysis. The identification of the K1
sample may have been possible, as both vines and leaves were present in the sample. However, the Ql sample
consisted only of bark (based on the notes), and an identification of the species of wood is not valid using only
bark. It seems the comparison was based on "...all observable characteristics." as referenced in the report. It is
my opinion that this was not a valid comparison. i

2. There are no notes regarding the microscopic characteristics of specimen Kl, and the only macroscopic
characteristic cited is color. A copy of reference material is included in the notes taken from "Selected Weeds of
the United States". The notes do not provide any information that allow the identification to be made. For
specimen Ql, the only notes refer to the color of the bark, which is not sufficient to make the stated association.

Review completed at:

10:04 (Time),

5/22 /03

(Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):

60 minutes

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages. ,

5/22/03

(Signature)

(Date)

Page

Initials: